Hmm, maybe this is a bug in the HTTP/2 close code then, and somehow the connection is not being closed if the client hangs up abruptly. I had a quick look at the code though and I think it looks ok, but maybe some more investigation is needed.Stuart_______________________________________________On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 03:41, Nishant Kumar <email@example.com> wrote:Yes, i have no control on client side. I am using HTTP2. I have tried increasing open file limit to 400k but that consumes all memory and system hangs. I will probably try to put a nginx in front of Undertow and test.setServerOption(UndertowOptions.ENABLE_HTTP2, true)On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 7:48 PM David Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:56 AM Stan Rosenberg <email@example.com> wrote:
> Stuck in CLOSE_WAIT is a symptom of the client-side not properly shutting down .
I would partially disagree. In the article you linked: "It all starts
with a listening application that leaks sockets and forgets to call
close(). This kind of bug does happen in complex applications." This
seems to be essentially what's happening here: the server isn't
completing the connection (for some reason), stranding the socket in
We can't assume that the client is abandoning the connection after
`FIN_WAIT2` (the titular RFC violation); if the server stays in
`CLOSE_WAIT`, then even if the client dutifully stays in `FIN_WAIT2`
forever, the resolving condition still needs to be that the server
shuts down its side of the connection.
This diagram is a useful visual aid, mapping TCP states to the XNIO
undertow-dev mailing list